Again, you have no problem with regulations if they “help us achieve a better quality of life”. Well the Greens and Grim aren’t happy with that. They want to make sure that government action does not compromise the equal chance of future generations of having an equally good life; and that’s a different proposition altogether.

But either way, whether we accept your standard or theirs, when we ask you, or them, to identify the rational criterion by which you know whether a given resource should be consumed now or conserved for the future, they are at a loss to identify how they know, and why they assert, that governmental action is justified at all, in their own terms.

This is not some kind of strange coincidence. We are looking at a rational demonstration that all species of socialism are internally vacuous and self-contradictory. But if not, then what are the answers to my questions?

Thus even if conservative politicians were more familiar with radical conservatives like Edmund Burke, it wouldn’t put the apologists for government in any better position, let alone the laughable suggestion that the Greens have a better intuitive understanding of how to solve the problem as you, or they, have framed it.

Both in terms of fairness and in terms of helping us achieve a better quality of life, you would have been much better off reasoning thus: “since all kinds of socialists – however called - are unable to rationally justify their claims in favour of the beneficence of government power in allocating scarce resources to their most valued ends, if all kinds of socialists *especially the Greens* were just a little more familiar with the theories that rationally prove them unanswerably wrong, and which correctly explain the principles of human society, we just might be able to build a better future.”

Oh dear, I forgot that in Peter Wing Ah Jardine K Hume's world, only those who disagree with him have “ideologies”.
This is on the same mature level as those who reckon only white people can be racists, and Aussies are unique in the world for being the only ones able to speak English with no trace of an accent.
Since you clearly know me better than I know myself Peter K, perhaps you'd care to enunciate my ideology?
The only authority I have mentioned so far in this thread is Mises. Are you accusing me of being a Classical Liberal, or a right wing Libertarian?
I certainly agree with Mises on the matter of economic calculation (with one qualification) and I also share his views on Government:

“A famous, very often quoted phrase says: “That government is best, which governs least.” I do not believe this to be a correct description of the functions of a good government. Government ought to do all the things for which it is needed and for which it was established. Government ought to protect the individuals within the country against the violent and fraudulent attacks of gangsters, and it should defend the country against foreign enemies. These are the functions of government within a free system, within the system of the market economy.” Mises.

“Government as such,” he (Mises) declared, “is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved.” Mises understood that a strong but limited government, far from suffocating its citizens, enables them to be productive and free.”

“Baygon, you are saying, correct me if I’m wrong, that you have no problem with taxes, regulation or the size of government, provided government is wise, fair, and helps us achieve a better quality of life, and therefore *other people* are missing the point to object to it.”
“That is so dumb, that I’m surprised you’re not ashamed to have betrayed such complete confusion.”

And yet, that's pretty much exactly what Mises said. You think Mises was dumb?

Who owned the air you were breathing as you ate your breakfast, Jardine Wing Ah? (hint; Google “Caesar's breath”). If you believe the atmosphere is divisible and the air in your home belongs to you and you alone, I suggest you lock all your doors and windows and keep it to yourself and see how you go.
Foreign governments all over the world are polluting the air I breathe. Do I not -according to Mises- have a right to demand my government protect me from these “foreign incursions”?
When I say “we are one” I am of course referring to the Human species. Are you not a member of this species?
Do you deny that all people should take responsibility for their actions?
Do you deny that -as a species- we affect the biosphere in ways we cannot (currently, accurately) predict?
Do you deny that all people living in a community (state, nation) should bear some responsibility to others in the community?
Do you believe that if one sector of a community decides to conduct an experiment, which they cannot accurately predict the consequences of and which could adversely affect everyone in the community, they should have the right to do so?
Without consulting the rest of the community?
Do you deny that parents should protect and nurture their children, and try to offer them the best possible future?

“perhaps you'd care to enunciate my ideology”

I always put forward the arguments for liberty, so to the extent you have ever joined issue with me, you’ve been arguing for aggression to violate the person or property of others, because that’s what I always oppose. I’ve been showing how it’s morally and economically false, irrational and self-contradictory. If you can cite an example where that was not the case, I’ll apologise.

You said “Save us from ideologues” and I took that, correct me if I’m wrong, to be a reference to my post critiquing John’s assumption that, if modern-day conservatives understood radical conservatives like Burke better, they might be more inclined to agree with governmental action, especially on environmental issues.

As I have shown, the fact that nature imposes limits on human action is not caused by “ideology”, and the original economic problem – of scarce resources and opportunity costs - cannot be conjured away by political forced redistributions of property titles.

Do you deny that?

“I certainly agree with Mises on the matter of economic calculation…”

Bravo.

“ (with one qualification) “

and what is that pray?

(…)

“And yet, that's pretty much exactly what Mises said.”

No it’s not. Mises wasn’t saying, as Bagyon did, that he has “no problem with taxes, regulation or the size of government, provided government is wise, fair, and helps us achieve a better quality of life”, because Baygon didn’t give any rational principle by which those criteria could be objectively known, or limited.

Mises did: it’s limited by the primacy of the rights to freedom from aggression against person and property.

Mises’ conception of “the things for which government is needed and for which it was established” … “within a free system, within the system of the market economy” so far as I understand it, is that the use of government’s coercive apparatus is justified to protect its subjects from aggressive incursions against their rights of person and property; and no more than that.

So Mises’ is a strictly limited conception of the legitimacy of government, whereas Baygon’s is open-ended.

(cont.)
Baygon’s would justify coercive aggressions against person and property, so long as the proponents satisfied themselves that what they were doing was “wise”, or “equitable” and “helps us achieve a better quality of life” (confusing “us” with those whom he would violate).

Baygon’s would permit looting A to satisfy B. It would permit coercive socialism to the nth degree, limited only by his own arbitrary opinion of what was wise or equitable, no matter how much it violated other people’s person or property.

Mises’ wouldn’t. Mises, like me, would only permit government power strictly limited to suppressing force- or fraud-based incursions against person and property. This would rule out over fifty percent of modern western governmental activity; Baygon’s would permit even more totalitarian socialism. That’s what the argument’s about.

* * *

“Who owned the air you were breathing as you ate your breakfast…”?
Before I breathed it in, no-one. When I breathed it in, me. After I breathed it out, no-one again.

“(hint; Google “Caesar's breath”).”

Consider it Googled. Can’t see the relevance. Caesar’s property right in his breath is extinct. My appropriating it from its unowned state in nature does not aggress against his person or property.

If I used force to appropriate air from someone’s lungs, then you would have a point.

“If you believe the atmosphere is divisible and the air in your home belongs to you and you alone, I suggest you lock all your doors and windows and keep it to yourself and see how you go.”

No need. What would that prove? You have not made any point against the classical liberal conception of either property or government.

“Foreign governments all over the world are polluting the air I breathe.”

Can’t see you proving that on the balance of probabilities. But let’s just suppose you’re right for the sake of argument.

“Do I not -according to Mises- have a right to demand my government protect me from these “foreign incursions”?”

Only if their actions constitute aggression against your personal or property rights. I don’t think they do.

But certainly they could. When polluters damage enjoyment of one’s personal or property rights, then that is a justification of governmental action to defend them, according to the classical liberal view.

“When I say “we are one” I am of course referring to the Human species [snip sarcasm]"

The fact that we are human, does not justify the meaningless, metaphysical, false, and pointless assertion that we are “one”. If you and I were one, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we?

“We” aren’t one. We are seven billion, and each has his own values and interests which are sometimes in harmony, sometimes in conflict with others’.

The idea that human existence ipso facto justifies violent aggression against person or property is confused, self-contradictory, and unjustified.

“Do you deny that all people should take responsibility for their actions?’
I agree up to a certain point. They are morally and should be legally responsible not to aggress against the person or property of others, and the use of coercion is justified to constrain them to if necessary.

However if they are not aggressing against the person or property of others, then I deny there is any moral or legal justification to force them to sacrifice their values for others’. For example when you buy butter, you adversely affect the interests of other butter producers. Should you be “responsible” for that? Not necessarily. Voluntary responsibility – fine.

But I deny that any use of force – including law or policy - is justified to aggress against the person or property of you, or your preferred butter-maker, or anyone else so as to favour the butter-makers you don’t prefer, even though you have adversely affected them by your deliberate actions.

It is fake moral superiority to pretend a social motive that is to be implemented by unprovoked aggression against others: thus all political socialism is ethically fraudulent.

“Do you deny that - as a species- we affect the biosphere in ways we cannot (currently, accurately) predict?”

No. I deny that you represent the species, or anyone who disagrees with you.

(cont.)